English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

People tend to accept decisions if the process leading up to them is perceived as legitimate. However, the literature seldom asks if perceived legitimacy translates to compliant, non-corrupt behavior. Thus, the association between  legitimacy  and  corruption  is curiously understudied. This paper argues that, while legitimation may contribute to acceptance of authority, it does not necessarily lead to compliance with anti-corruption norms. Analysing a mature democracy characterised by absence of endemic corruption, it finds that while legitimacy may, to a small extent, contribute to compliance with anti-corruption norms, it is in most cases insufficient to overcome incentives of self-interested behavior. Instead, compliance with anti-corruption norms crucially depends on individuals’ perceptions of how willing others are to take part, or not to take part, in corruption. This implies support for the ‘social trap’-view of corruption, where credible enforcement of non-corruption norms is crucial to persuading people not to take part in it.

Does Legitimacy Mitigate Corruption? The Relevance of Social Traps in Low-corruption Contexts